Real vs. Sham C0-C1 Mobilization in Patients With Chronic Neck Pain and Upper Cervical Restriction .
Are there differences between a real C0-C1 mobilization and a sham technique in function and pressure pain threshold in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction? A randomised controlled clinical trial.
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2023;36(1): 61-70.Twenty-eight patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction were randomized to receive a single session of C0-C1 dorsal gliding manual therapy (n=14) or a sham treatment (n=14). The primary outcome of interest was the flexion-rotation test variable. Secondary outcomes included upper flexion-extension mobility, pain pressure threshold, and deep flexor muscle activation, measured immediately post-treatment. The active dorsal gliding therapy group demonstrated significantly better improvement in the flexion-rotation test, upper cervical range of motion in extension, and right splenius pressure pain threshold compared to the sham group.
Unlock the Full ACE Report
You have access to 4 more FREE articles this month.
Click below to unlock and view this ACE Reports
Unlock Now
Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics
Or upgrade today and gain access to all OrthoEvidencecontent for as little as $1.99 per week.
Already have an account? Log in
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
